Per the article: 'Disney appears to be pushing for YouTube TV to carry its full catalog, where YouTube TV appears to feel that certain networks may not be worth carrying with “non-existent” viewership.' It's literally about these no value added channels nobody watches like Freeform. In the old cable days, just having more channels was an asset for justifying cable plans costing $100, and they legally had to carry ABC, so ABC could go "C'mon, only $30mil for Localish is a steal! We'll throw in ESPN Classic for only another $10mil if you say yes!" That dynamic is gone, so now Freeform IS in fact worth very little money, but Disney has not adjusted to the new reality with Youtube.
B
bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
@bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
Posts
-
YouTube TV exec says Disney is 'unnecessarily aggressive,' wants customers to pay for channels they don't watch -
YouTube TV exec says Disney is 'unnecessarily aggressive,' wants customers to pay for channels they don't watchExcept they're not bound by legal carrying requirements for specific broadcast ABC stations and Disney no longer makes fictional content anyone wants to watch, which destroys all non-ESPN leverage Disney has with normal cable providers to force Freeform on a market that doesn't want it, while Youtube itself has a direct NFL deal, which is like 60% of American sports consumption... Disney doesn't appreciate that Youtube is in a stronger position than ANY cable provider and Disney has never been in a worse position to demand anything.
-
YouTube TV exec says Disney is 'unnecessarily aggressive,' wants customers to pay for channels they don't watchDoes Google expect people to WANT to pay for Freeform? How is Disney supposed to make money on content nobody wants?